Reasonable accommodation is all well and good. My coworker and I can work that sort of thing out without much effort. But when a boss dictates solutions to me that consistently favor people with children over people without, that’s not equable. The time away from work is equally valuable to both parent and non parent alike. They should be treated that way.
I apologize. Of course, as others have said, THAT part of it isn’t any fun for childless people either.
Well, at least we agree on that. Which was my original post in this thread. I did not talk about bringing kids to work during business hours, I was talking about parents bringing their kids during off hours. That way, they can take some of weekend/overtime work (and not take any of your precious free time) without having to neglect the kids. When I made that suggestion, which is in part how I was raised, you snapped back with
You’re a fucking stooge.
Check again, shit-for-brains.
The OP is about preferential treatment. In his case, preferential treatment of females over males in terms of time off to spend with kids.
No one except you and LHOD have said that “the business world” or “the system” or “society” makes an assumption that people with kids should get the breaks. And you and he say it with no evidence other than pointing to the posts in this thread.
Even a cursory reading of those posts for comprehension (if you’re able) would demonstrate that instead, people are complaining when preferential treatment is given, which is outside the norm of fairness. The business world does not systematically give preference to people with kids at the expense of those without. Occasionally, a few asshole employees will insist on the entitlement you believe exists, and occasionally employers will abuse their single employees but there is no evidence of a societal mandate for singles to support parents by working more without compensation.
Yeah, you can have a job and a kid…and you don’t have to be married or in a committed relationship with another adult. But then you’ll have to spend more of YOUR money to cover the babysitter, and the backup babysitter, and whatever else you need to meet YOUR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITIES. And so you won’t be able to take as many vacations or buy that new car, because, you know…you can’t have it all.
Oh, yeah, I’m real worried about running out of people. Who was Thomas Malthus again?
Oh my god!!! Do you really think we could run out of children?!? Maybe they’ll all get ear infections, go deaf, and get hit by buses since they can’t hear them coming!! I can’t believe this is happening…THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
No, my solution to the problem of some workers with an overinflated sense of entitlement, and an grossly overblown sense of the value of their own children, is to not allow them to abuse their coworkers. This could be done by reprimanding them when they do, and eventually firing them if they continue.
Can you please point to one documented societal mandate that shows that the big society is against me? You know, something like social security, or property taxes or income taxes, that suggests that singles need to cover for parents without compensation. Just one please.
Yap…still waiting for that documentation from you and the society.
Hey, LinkTard!! Here’s one for you:
Every fucking child gets one by age 3, and many get multiple. Do you see the student body at Gallaudet exploding? Of course not, because ear infections are not emergencies, they are fucking routine.
Hypothetically, let’s say Timmy gets the ear ache today at school. School calls you and says Timmy has an ear ache. You’re probably going to have to determine whether or not to pick Timmy up right now or not, and at any rate will likely not be making a determination whether to take Timmy to the doctor until after you’ve seen Timmy personally, at which point you’ll need to make an appointment which may be tomorrow or the next day.
It’s doubtful that Timmy’s headed for the emergency room this minute, so is it unreasonable to say you might delay picking Timmy up for an hour so you can wrap up what you’re doing, take the work home, or arrange to trade tasks with someone?
If, say, Timmy got a compound fracture on the playground, you’re probably going to exit immediately. That’s an emergency, which by nature is not going to be something that happens frequently, which makes it less of a pain in the ass if you do the ‘I need to go’ thing the one time it does happen.
For a lot of things, it’s going to take planning ahead. If you want to be at the middle of the day chorus concert, plan ahead. Manage your own time around it.
At the same time, I plan ahead for things also. If I want to go somewhere on a certain date, I schedule ahead of time to leave work early, and that means I still accomplish the tasks I need to during that week.
Then that was a misunderstanding, because I thought you meant during normal business hours. It doesn’t hurt me any if someone takes their kid to the office on Saturday, as long as they make sure the kid is not messing with things on other worker’s desks, like playing ‘feed the spec to the paper shredder’. My company wouldn’t care if you hooked up their Wii to the conference room projector as long as they are not needed for business purposes at that moment and they don’t break anything.
You know I can’t find “extreme circumstance” anywhere in the page you linked…where are you quoting that from? Or are you just pulling it out of your ass?
What is, in fact, available in that link are the following quotes:
“Fluctuating conductive hearing loss nearly always occurs with all types of otitis media [ear infection].”
“Otitis media is the most frequently diagnosed disease in infants and young children (1). Seventy-five percent of children experience at least one episode of otitis media by their third birthday. Almost one-half of these children will have three or more ear infections during their first 3 years of life.”
“At the other extreme are repeated bouts with infection, thick “glue-like” fluid and possible complications such as permanent hearing loss.”
Oh, there’s the word extreme, though…except it is saying that permanent hearing loss is EXTREMELY rare.
Malthus, I hereby label you – Disingenuous.
Neither do I. That’s why I was confused when you responded to my posting talking about childcare and the government.
Doesn’t have anything to do with you accusing me of sucking off the teat of society and now arguing to deny it to employed parents, does it? So, you agree with me that portion of your retort, as it applies to me, is a non sequitor? Frankly, it’s a non-sequitor period, but whatever.
So, you agree with me, then.
Inre InLucemEdita, from my post, I’m certain a reasonable person can ascertain what my opinion might be, if one would only read it without seeing things that aren’t there.
Oh, and villa? I’m glad you got to spend some time with your son. It is unfair how you get treated, and I encourage you again to broach the subject with at least one offender to see if you can work out a better compromise going forward. I hope you’re pleasantly surprised. ::crosses fingers::
I was reacting to this:
If it now turns out we agree more than we disagree, I apologize for reacting to that. I did not know you were limiting your commentary to children’s parties and the like.
I’m reacting to the notion that one owes no reasonable accomodation to others. Given that people were, generally, children themselves at one point … I do think that a certain amount of fellow-feeling is, if not mandatory, at least laudable.
It would seem so, yes.
Heh. Now there’s a convincing argument! 
Thanks for letting me know I need not waste my time.
I would certainly agree it isn’t an emergency in the degree that a compound fracture is an emergency.
The point is that it isn’t something you can just leave to fester - you must deal with it. Which means obtaining a doctor appointment.
Pediatricians being as busy as they are, chances are that this appointment will not be at a convenient time in terms of one’s work schedule. Which means a certain degree of inconvenience to everyone - inconvenience which can certainly be worked around to a degree, but which cannot be ignored.
[quote=“Malthus, post:108, topic:477773”]
I was reacting to this:
IOW, everyone needs to take responsibility for their own choices. I stand by that statement. You don’t get to have kids and then expect special accomodation beyond what’s reasonable solely because you have children. Better to accept there will be trade-offs and that you own the consequences of your choices, good and bad. (Seriously, is this a difficult concept?)
I took the bus to work for two years. I didn’t get to assume someone from the office was going to give me a ride home because I couldn’t afford a car. I got myself in that position, I made choices that got me there. It’s mine to deal with. Now, if I really needed someone to help me, I would ask, but if they turned me down that was 100% their right to do so.
Which it seems, now, you realize I was not arguing and never said. In fact, I am arguing that people who can’t make reasonable accomodations need to go back to kindergarten to re-learn the concept of sharing.
And may I add, it doesn’t seem like anyone in this thread is anti-kid, but most are anti-being taken advantage of and anti-unreasonable accomodation. And pro adults take responsibility for adult choices.
…a stooge…and my bitch.
[quote=“niblet_head, post:111, topic:477773”]
I’m not arguing for special accomodation “…beyond what is reasonable”.
I do argue for special accomodation “…solely because you have children”.
As others have remarked the “accomodation” is not for the benefit of the parent - it is for the benefit of the child.
Agreed, but I do not think the situations are analogous.
A child is not simply an extention of the parent’s own wants and desires, like a choice in transportation. He or she has irreducable needs that the parent cannot, however much they may wish, ignore.
And on that at least we are agreed …
I do not say anyone is “anti-kid”.
I think that many arguing in this thread are simply unaware of the necessity for reasonable accomodation in this situation, and are equally unaware of how much they, personally, have benefited such accomodation themselves.
Scenario: Two workers on a shift, say for the whole year. Worker A has children, and Worker B has none. On holidays, it is required that one of the workers be staffed. Are you saying that for every holiday, that Worker A should get every holiday off because he has children, and only that reason?
No, actually I’m not going to explain. Why? Because I know my anology was flawed from the start. But only in response to your flawed analogy that a few posters responses are an indication that that is how society works. It does work for those that have children however.